Int’l IP


Module 4
Trademarks and Geographical Indications
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-1
Trademark
Generic
Descriptive
Suggestive
“Brilliant” for
diamonds
“Brilliant” for
shoe polish
Arbitrary / Fanciful / Coined
aspirin
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
“Brilliant” for
canned apple
sauce
4-2
Descriptive?









character
function
feature
quality
ingredient
nature
purpose
use
characteristics

dimensions, color, odor.
..
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-3
Generic
-ness
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-4
Likelihood of Confusion factors
1.
strength of the mark
Based on the continuum of distinctiveness
proximity of the goods
•
The closer the goods, the greater danger the public will
mistakenly assume an association between the producers of
the related goods, so the less tolerance for close marks
•
Sold to the same class of purchasers?
•
2.
similarity of the marks
evidence of actual confusion
marketing channels used
type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
defendant's intent in selecting the mark
likelihood of expansion of the product lines
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-5
Likelihood of Confusion factors
strength of the mark
proximity of the goods
1.
2.
similarity of the marks
3.
•
•
•
•
evidence of actual confusion
4.
•
Persuasive proof, but difficult to prove, often brought by parties in
unclear or insubstantial form
•
Actual or anecdotal evidence, or with a survey, strictly screened
marketing channels used
5.
•
6.
7.
8.
Sight, sound and meaning
Tested as encountered in the marketplace
Compare the marks as a whole, don’t dissect unless trying to
eliminate trademark coverage for generic, functional or disclaimed
portions of a trademark or trade dress
Similarities weigh more heavily than differences
Similarities and differences of channels used
type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
defendant's intent in selecting the mark
likelihood of expansion of the product lines
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-6
Likelihood of Confusion factors
strength of the mark
proximity of the goods
similarity of the marks
evidence of actual confusion
marketing channels used
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised
by the purchaser
6.
Standard is typical buyer exercising ordinary caution – the “reasonable
purchaser” of the products at issue is who must be likely confused
•
•
•
•
Wholly indifferent excluded, ignorant and credulous included
Buyers with expertise in the field, or expensive product, may allow for a higher
standard
Effect of quality differences or equivalence
defendant's intent in selecting the mark
7.
•
Bad faith or intent to “palm off” is presumptive evidence that defendant
will accomplish its purpose – deceive customers
likelihood of expansion of the product lines
8.
•
When goods are closely related, any expansion is likely to result in
direct competition
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-7
Trademarks and GIs



Marks
Brands
GIs


Treaties




TRIPS Art. 22-24
TRIPS
Paris
Madrid Protocol
Types of Trademark systems



Use based
 U.S. intent to use system
Mere registration
Pros/cons of each?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-8
Problem 4-1

TRIPS Art. 15(3)


Paris Art. 5(C)(1)


If, in any country, use of the registered mark is compulsory, the
registration may be cancelled only after a reasonable period, and
then only if the person concerned does not justify his inaction.
15 USC 1051(d)


Members may make registrability depend on use. However, actual
use of a trademark shall not be a condition for filing an application
for registration. An application shall not be refused solely on the
ground that intended use has not taken place before the expiry of
a period of three years from the date of application.
Under the Lanham act an Intent to Use (ItoU) application requires
a statement of use within 6 months, automatically extensible upon
applicant request for an additional 6 months; and extensible for 24
additional months upon filing a statement showing good cause
why use has not started, and paying administratively determined
fee
Does the Lanham act implementation meet the spirit or
letter of TRIPS Art. 15(3), or both?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-9
SCM Corp. v. Langis Foods (D.C. Cir. 1976)

Langis activity






SCM activity






5/15/1969 begin LemonTree use
6/18/1969 filing in US: LemonTree
June 1970, begin OrangeTree, LimeTree use
6/22/1970 filing in US: OrangeTree, LimeTree
October 1971, oppose (AppleTree, OrangeTree) and petition to
cancel (LemonTree) at USPTO
US PTO


3/28/1969 filing in Canada: AppleTree, OrangeTree, LemonTree
5/15/1969 use in Canada begins
9/19/1969 filing in US: AppleTree, OrangeTree, LemonTree (Sec. 44)
August 1971, AppleTree, OrangeTree publish by USPTO
October 1971, LemonTree issues from USPTO
5/7/1973: ???
Dist. Ct.

???
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
Issue: what does it take to “perfect” constructive date of
original Canadian filing:
- Use in US?
- Use in Canada before use in US?
- Is Use even necessary?
4-10
Havana Club (WTO 2002)

CubaExport




Bacardi




Cuba filing for HavanaClub mark in 1974
US Sec. 44 filing for HavanaClub w/ registration in 1976 to
CubaExport
In 1993, CubaExport J/V w/ French Company
1996, begin exports of Bermuda HavanaClub rum to US
1997, buys original rights of mark from family unable to produce since
1960
1998 – Sec. 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
WTO on Sec. 211


Negative ownership rule
Does not address form
of the mark
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-11
Madrid System

Madrid Agreement (1891)

Allows registration in all member countries through filing in an Int’l
Bureau, via local member country office as intermediary

The Bureau is administered by WIPO in a program entitled:



The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks
The US has not joined the Madrid Agreement
Madrid Protocol is a separate agreement which US has recently joined

US participation went into effect in late 2003
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-12
The Madrid System

Among trademark and patent law, only trademark has a true
multinational filing system that (may?) produce substantive rights

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a procedural, examination and
priority preserving system



Like the Madrid system – there is examination in each country, but the
“presumption” is flipped – no protection unless local examination grants the
right
And, the examination only occurs in each country if the applicant takes the
PCT application into the “national stage” for processing in each country
Madrid Agreement (1891)





Home country issuance, “basic registration,” is a predicate requirement
International filing is in the home country office
It is forwarded to WIPO as an international registration application (6 months
Paris Convention priority is available from the basic registration)
WIPO publishes it, and forwards it to other countries designated by the
applicant
Unless a designated country acts within one year, the mark is deemed
protected
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-13
The Madrid System

The US has stayed out of the Madrid Agreement





US mark owners disadvantaged by “basic registration” requirement
 US TM prosecution takes on average much longer
12 month refusal period is too short in the US
 USPTO processing of a TM application often takes longer
 PTO would have to focus more energy on Madrid filings to meet the 12
month deadline, further lengthening waiting times for domestic filers
“Central Attack” during first 5 years
 Many more grounds to attack a mark in the US
Only official language under the Madrid Agreement is French
Because fees are much lower, at US PTO, domestic filers would be
subsidizing Madrid Agreement filers
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-14
The Madrid System

Madrid Protocol


Initial proposal – changes to Madrid Agreement
 Changes to allow four non-Agreement EC members and US to join
Differences from the Madrid Agreement

Int’l application may be alternatively based on a home country
application (rather than a registration)

Reservation allowed for taking 18 months to evaluate the
international application


Important for US Intent to Use applications
Refusals can be entered after the 18 months for counties with opposition
systems
National law applies to determine whether mark is registerable
Central attack still applies, BUT
 If central attack is successful, the applicant has the option to
transform all Madrid Protocol filings in the other counties into national
filings
Both English and French are official languages



Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-15
The Madrid System

Madrid Protocol


Implementing regulations by WIPO
 US need for regulation approval to require allegation of a bona
fide intent to use the mark in US commerce
 Searchable database due to delay in international applications
showing up in the national databases
Advantages
 Potentially eliminate designated country attorney fees
 Single filing, fee, language & one maintenance fee
 Assignments – single recording
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-16
The Madrid Protocol

US adherence to Protocol would not result in many US markholders who
currently file in foreign jurisdictions to instead make these filings under
the Madrid Protocol

Doing so would import a rights-restrictive US practice into the foreign
applications





The listing of goods and services is narrowly drawn in US applications
The international application would be based on the US basic
application/registration
Many entities currently file directly in foreign jurisdictions so as to take
advantage of the practice in those jurisdictions of not specifying a narrow class
of goods/services with the mark
One solution – have US PTO allow broader classification?
Illustration – hypothetical mark
Scope of US
Classification
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
Madrid
Protocol
(or Paris
priority)
Scope of Foreign
Classification
Scope of
Foreign
Classification
with direct
country filing
(competitor’s
scope)
4-17
The Madrid Protocol

US Accession


7 years of delay based on EU voting rights dispute until EU agreed
to not cast a block of votes larger than the number of EU member
states
MPIA






File in US PTO for “extension of protection” to designated foreign
Madrid System countries
No substantative harmonization of Madrid system member states
law
 Generally, not a result arising from the Madrid system
Foreign Madrid Protocol filings extended into the US
3 months to transform if successful “central attack”
US – heightened maintenance requirements
 Affidavit of continued use between years 5-6, every 10 year renewal
Assignment with goodwill required like any US mark
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-18
The Madrid Protocol


Initial structure of Madrid Agreement was in response to
political fragility of new Paris Union
Impact on US Trademark system?



Need to modify US practice to solve the problems
associated with US restriction of mark’s coverage to a
narrow range of goods/services


Will clearing marks for US TM applications become more
complicated?
Bottlenecking and queuing of TM applications at the PTO
Does this impact some classes of markholders more than
others?
Impact on licensing marks for foreign manufacturers
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-19
The Madrid Protocol

Foreign Madrid Protocol registrations



Advantages to extending protection to the US?
 Cannot be denied the mark based on non-use
 Equal footing with US registrants?
Impact on consumers worldwide?
Official languages exclusionary effect on Central and
South America?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-20
CTM




“open system” – applicants can file from Paris Union or WTO
Unitary system – one single . . .
 Application
 Office
 Procedure
 Regulation
 Fee structure
Downside of unitary nature
 Can only be assigned for the entire EU
 Can be invalidated for the entire EU
First to file system – no use or allegation of use required
 Filing requirements include graphical representation of the
mark
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-21
CTM

Filing possible in up to 11 languages

But, second language must be specified as one of 5 “office” languages and
different from application

If original language is not an office language, post-registration proceedings
conducted in the chosen office language

Substantive law

EU CTM Office – OHIM – examines marks only for “absolute” grounds









Follows EU TM Harmonization directive
trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character
trade marks which consist exclusively of descriptive signs
trade marks which consist exclusively of generic signs or indications
signs which consist exclusively of either the shape which results from the nature
of the goods, is necessary to obtain a technical effect, or gives substantial value
to the goods
trade marks contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality
deceptive trade marks
trade marks for wines which falsely indicate their geographical origin
signs, which have become customary in ordinary language and established
practices of the trade, for example “hoover” for vacuum cleaners
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-22
CTM

After examining for absolute grounds, OHIM relies on third parties to
oppose the mark

OHIM performs search in conjunction with national trademark offices

Notifies the owners of existing CTM marks (but not national marks)




But, uneven nature of national office searches (if searched at all)
In essence, OHIM acts as a “watch” service for existing mark owners
But, due to implementation problems, very few CTM applications are
withdrawn as a result of this “informational search”
These mark owners have opportunity to oppose on “relative” grounds

Confusingly similar or diluting earlier mark(s) [in any EU countries!]






CTM applications or registrations
Regular EU member state registrations/applications
International registrations having effect in EU
Well known marks in an EU state
Unregistered marks if the member state protects these
Mark denied registration if unregistrable in a single country in the EU
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-23
CTM

Appeal




Conversion – available in some cases




First, OHIM Board of Appeal
Then, Court of First Instance
Then, ECJ
Retain CTM priority date
More $$$
Comply with member state procedural requirements for converting
Revocation and Invalidity


CTM never becomes incontestable
Invalidity – any grounds (absolute or relative) that could have been used
for originally denying the application



But, “laches” after 5 years for prior owners
Revocation – new grounds (typically, non-use, abandonment, generic)
Either can be raised in an infringement proceeding
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-24
CTM

Enforcement



Use of both CTM and national systems is possible



Designated national CTM courts (trial and appellate)
Applying substantive law of CTM regulation
 Remedies, procedure, other matters left to local law
Both for different marks and/or the same mark
To encourage use of CTM, owners of existing national marks
may file for CTM marks and claim “seniority” from the national
mark
 Complicated requirements
 Triple identity requirement – goods, marks and owner identical
Comparison of CTM to US system?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-25
DHL Express France SAS v. Chronopost SA. (ECJ 2011)

Original suit in France




Mark: WEBSHIPPING (France,
CTM)
“injunction” and penalty
payments applied only in
France
French appellate court
reference to ECJ
National law for infringement
of CTM, but unitary character
of the CTM mark suggests
extending jurisdiction to the
full EU


Perhaps limited injunction if no
harm in some member states
“equivalent manner” for coercive
measures such as penalty
payments
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-26
Vittoria v. Euro-Asia Imports, 278 F.3d 1076 (10th 2001)

Treaty provisions



Paris 6quater
TRIPS Art. 21
VNA – alleges it owns what?

1999 assignment w/ right to retake

What is EAI doing?

Why require a transfer of
“goodwill”



What is “goodwill”?
Compared to “naked licensing”
Common control issue
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-27
OHIM v. Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen (ECJ 2010)




2005 registration of a
single Greek letter for
alcoholic beverages . . .
Rejection based on
perceptions of Greekspeaking purchasers
Further adjudication –
“devoid of distinctive
character” – merely
because it is a letter,
without contextual
analysis
Capable of having
trademark meaning
versus actually having it
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-28
Koninklijke Philips v. Remington (ECJ 2002)




Distinctiveness criteria for 3D marks same as others,
so “capricious addition” not necessary
Third question?


Represented graphically and capable of distinguishing
Second question?


Philips (SR)
Subject matter analysis referred to ECJ
First question?
Factors for distinctiveness – need specific and reliable
data to prove expectations of average consumer
Remington (JR)
Fourth question – functionality

Existence of other shapes that could achieve the
result doesn’t diminish the invalidating effect of a
shape whose “essential characteristics perform a
technical function”
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
TrafFix Devices v. MDI (2001)
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-29
WindMaster
WindBuster
4-30
Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import (2d 1999)





Otokoyama Co. Ltd. (“OCL”) owns 4 US TM for word
“otokoyama” and Japanese character pictogram,
used to import sake into the US
OCL sued Wine of Japan Import (“WJI”) alleging Lanham act
violations arising from WJI’s sale of Mutsu Otokoyama sake
WJI counterclaimed that (i) OCL’s marks are generic, and (ii)
OCL committed “fraud on the US PTO”
District court awarded preliminary injunction to OCL, refusing
certain evidence offered by WJI
OCL attempted registration in Japan of “otokoyama” in 1962


Japan PTO rejected, apparently for genericness, but translation is
disputed
OCL initial registration in the US in 1986-88


When US PTO asked for translation of “otokoyama,” OCL
responded w/ statement that to its “knowledge, the mark is an
arbitrary, fanciful term . . . [a]ccordingly, the mark cannot be
translated.”
From 1992-95, three more “otokoyama “registrations, all with same
exchange
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-31
Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import (2d 1999)

Rule against generic marks also applies when the word
designates a product class in a language other than English

Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents



Assumption is that there are or will be US customers who speak that
language
Examples of non-protectable words under the doctrine:





Applies to words that designate an entire class, or subclass
Sorbet (French word for fruit ice)
Kaba (coffee in Serbian and Ukranian)
“ha-lush-ka” (phonetic spelling of Hungarian word for egg noodles)
Japanese 300 year old meaning of “otokoyama” is “dry, manly
sake”
Policy considerations bar TM protection for generic words because
it puts competitors at a disadvantage in describing the product

For “foreign equivalents” speakers of the foreign language would be
misled to believe that there is only one brand of “otokoyama” in the US
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-32
Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import (2d 1999)

Rule against designations of foreign courts being
dispositive as to the rights of TM holders does not
apply in this situation



Japanese PTO opinion relevant to prove a language
issue for genericness determination


Rule is not an absolute bar – situation dependant as to when
such opinions are admissible
For example, foreign decision was admissible to show that a
party had the right to use a foreign TM in the foreign country
It is admissible for two purposes
 To show that word is generic
 As evidence of WJI’s claim of “fraud on the PTO”
Preliminary injunction vacated
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-33
Int’l Protection of TM under Paris

Paris Convention


National Treatment
 A member state may not subject foreigners benefiting from the
Paris Convention to higher industrial property protection standards
than those applicable to its own citizens
 Without National Treatment, a member country can subject a
state’s nationals to stricter conditions, refuse to protect rights,
require reciprocity, residence, fees, or other items
Independence of Rights
 Takes national treatment principle to an extreme
 TM ownership is governed exclusively by the national law of each
country.
 Exceptions to independence are



(i) priority right and
(ii) protection of the TM “as such” - when the mark would not meet the
prerequisites for protection in the target country, register it “as it is”
 For example, some countries allow registration of numbers or letters
Paris Union
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-34
Int’l Protection of TM under Paris

Paris Convention – Acquisition of Rights
 Prohibited Signs


Well Known Marks



Obligation to protect marks of associations, so long as its existence is not
contrary to the law of the country of origin
Association does not need to be established in country of protection. [Art.
7bis.]
Nature of goods to which the Mark is applied


Obligation to protect, but no obligation to provide registration, may be
protected under unfair competition [Art. 6sexies.]
Collective Marks


Even if not registered, have extended protection based on notoriety in country
where protection is sought
Service Marks


No TM on emblems of states, signs of control and guaranty, and emblems of
int’l intergovernmental organizations [Art. 6ter.]
Prohibition on impeding registration based on the nature of the goods (even if
marketing of such goods are prohibited) [Art. 7.]
Specific Mention

Member states cannot require as a condition of protection that the product
bear a specific mention of a TM registration [Art. 5D.]
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-35
Int’l Protection of TM under Paris

Paris Convention – Content of Rights
 Use


Co-Owners



Simultaneous use by co-owners shall not limit protection.
Grace Periods


States may require that a rightsholder effectively uses the mark, and if the
owner does not use it within a reasonable period of time, w/out valid reason for
disuse, the owner can be deprived of the mark. [Art. 5C(1).]
Must allow 6 months for payment of maintenance/renewal fees due.
Conventions based on Paris
 Madrid Agreement; Madrid Protocol
Paris Convention Contribution to TM law
 national treatment
 minimal procedural mechanisms



to facilitate the acquisition of TM rights on multinational basis
required “as is” acceptance of rights in a country
substantive minima in TM and unfair competition law
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-36
Substantive Minima – Well Known Marks


6bis(1)
 The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their
legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested
party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to
prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a
reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to
create confusion, of a mark considered by the
competent authority of the country of registration or use
to be well known in that country as being already the
mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this
Convention and used for identical or similar goods.
These provisions shall also apply when the essential
part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such
well-known mark or an imitation liable to create
confusion therewith.
To some extent, a derogation of principle of territoriality
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-37
Well-Known Marks

Under Art. 6bis(1):


a well-known mark can be characterized as a mark
which is known to a substantial segment of the
relevant public in the sense of being associated with
the particular goods or services
Famous marks versus “well-known” marks




Is there a difference?
Some contend that famous marks have a higher degree
of reputation
Famous marks violate the “principle of speciality”
 They have a broader scope of use against unauthorized
use on non-competing goods or services
Not possible to distinguish between famous/well-known
except as to the degree of recognition required
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-38
McDonalds v. JoBurgers (Appellate Division South Africa 1997)

McDonalds SouthAfrica TM registrations under the Old Act

Joburgers application to expunge the McDonalds marks and
register some of the same

9/28/93 court order – prevent Joburgers from going forward
pending suit

What about MacDonalds?

5/1/1995 – New Act with Well Known Marks protection


Segment?
Degree of awareness? (substantial number of persons)
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-39
TRIPS, Art. 16
1. The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all
third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical
or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect
of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of
confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services,
a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not
prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members
making rights available on the basis of use.
2. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis*, to
services. In determining whether a trademark is well-known, Members shall take
account of the knowledge of the trademark in the relevant sector of the public,
including knowledge in the Member concerned which has been obtained as a result of
the promotion of the trademark.
3. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis*, to goods
or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered,
provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would
indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the
registered trademark and provided that the interests of the owner of the registered
trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.
* mutatis mutandis: (in comparing cases) making the necessary alterations
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-40
TRIPS, Art. 16

Prevent confusing uses of an identical or similar
mark on identical or similar goods



Unlike under the Paris Convention, however,
TRIPS service marks receive protection equal to
that of marks affixed to goods or trade names
Owners of well-known marks obtain additional
protection on dissimilar goods


A presumption of confusion arises when identical
marks are used on identical goods
Well-known is not defined in TRIPS or Paris
Application to unregistered marks?

Not required textually by Art. 16, but it is a minimum
standard, so members can go further
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-41
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro (2nd Cir. 2005)

Dist. Ct. granted action by Cubatabaco against
General Cigar of the Dominican Republic



Cubatabaco




In U.S. 1978 to 1987; (abandoned?) 1992 to present
1981 U.S. federal registration for COHIBA
1997 new launch of premium cigar, prompting suit
Embargo regulations prohibiting property transfers, and then
allowing them by exception under general and specific
licenses



Sales outside Cuba since 1982, never in the U.S.
General Cigar


TM infringement by General Cigar in U.S. market
Mark is COHIBA
General – file for TMs
Specific – bring this suit
43(a) unfair competition claim?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-42
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro (2nd Cir. 2005)

Paris Art. 6bis claim?



44(b) says foreigners are entitled to benefits “to
the extent necessary to give effect to any
provision of a convention”
44(h) says that foreigners are entitled “to
protection against unfair competition”
Trump embargo?
“the federal right created
by 44(h) is coextensive
with the substantive
provisions of the treaty
involved . . . [44(b) & (h)]
work together to provide
federal rights and
remedies implementing
federal unfair competition
treaties.” Toho
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-43
Dilution – § 43(c) – remedies for dilution of famous marks (Act of 2006)
(1) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.—Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous
mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to
an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has
become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to
cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of
the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual
economic injury.
(2) DEFINITIONS.--(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely
recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of
source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark
possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant
factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the
mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered
under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
(iv) Whether the mark was registered . . . on the principal register.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-44
Dilution (Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006)
(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution by blurring’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark
or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a
mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the
following:
(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.
(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.
(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.
(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.
(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
(C) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution by tarnishment’ is association arising from the similarity between a
mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.
(3) EXCLUSIONS.--The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under
this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark
by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including use in
connection with-(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services
of the famous mark owner.
(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-45
Dilution – possible types or theories of harm
Type
“Tiffany” example (famous Other Example(s)
mark for a jewelry store)
[example described in a
recent 7th circuit case]
Blurring
“Tiffany” for an upscale
Goldfish
restaurant
Dupont shoes, Buick
aspirin tablets, Schlitz
varnish, Kodak pianos,
Bulova gowns
Tarnishment “Tiffany” for a “restaurant” John Deere
that is actually a
“striptease joint”
Snuggles
Victoria’s Secret
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-46
Dilution - Tarnishment


Definitions/characterizations
 defendant's unauthorized use dilutes by tarnishing or degrading
positive associations of the mark and thereby dilutes the distinctive
quality of the mark
 tarnishment is a finding that plaintiff's mark will suffer negative
associations through defendant's use
 the essence of tarnishment is the displacement of positive with
negative associations of the mark that, like a claim for blurring,
reduces the value of the mark to the trademark owner
Other examples
 CANDYLAND for a children's board game was held diluted by
tarnishment by "candyland.com" for an internet web site showing
sexually explicit pictures
 BUDWEISER was held diluted by the use of BUTTWEISER on T-shirts
 TOYS 'R US was held tarnished by use of ADULTS R US as a domain
name for an internet site for the sale of adult sexual products:
"adultsrus.com”
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-47
Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie & Fitch (9th Cir. 2011)

U.S. dilution law



Blurring
Blurring factors
Non-exclusive factor list approach to blurring is not
compatible with threshold showing required by district court

Degree of similarity versus nearly identical or substantially similar
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-48
Lanham Act § § 32 & 33 portions

(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant 


(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale,
distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with
which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive; or
(b) . . .
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter
provided. 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
15 U.S.C. 1115(b) Incontestability; defenses. To the extent that the right to use the registered mark has become incontestable under
section 15 [15 USC 1065], the registration shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of
the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce. . .
. Such conclusive evidence of the right to use the registered mark shall be subject to proof of infringement as defined in section 32
[15 USC 1114], and shall be subject to the following defenses or defects:
(1) That the registration or the incontestable right to use the mark was obtained fraudulently; or
(2) That the mark has been abandoned by the registrant; or
(3) That the registered mark is being used, by or with the permission of the registrant or a person in privity with the registrant, so as
to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used; or
(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party's
individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is
descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic
origin; or . . .
(7) That the mark has been or is being used to violate the antitrust laws of the United States; or
(8) That the mark is functional; or
(9) That equitable principles, including laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, are applicable.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-49
KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression (U.S. 2004)


KP alleged microcolor use since 1990/91
Lasting 1992 application for Micro Colors,
issued in 1993, “incontestable” in 1999

In 1999, KP’s use of microcolor in ad
brochure

Dist. Ct. – on S/J, descriptive fair use, no
confusion inquiry
9th – KP must also prove absence of
confusion?
Supreme Court?


Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-50
Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. ASDA Stores Ltd. (ECJ 2003)

Referral from the House of Lords



“quality, characteristic or reputation” of Parma ham originates
from what?


Distinguishing mark; slaughter requirements; aging/production
requirements; sliced and packaged in “typical production area” within
Parma province
Hygrade buys boned-but-not-sliced ham, slices/packages it
to sell to ASDA stores for retail sales



UK stores importing Parma ham from Italy
Lower court dismissed Consorzio’s action in the UK
“ASDA A taste of Italy PARMA HAM Genuine Italian Parma Ham”
Additional statements on back of package
Four issues for the ECJ

Three findings
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-51
Germany & Denmark v. EC Commission (ECJ Grand Chamber 2005)



Feta – slice in Italian is
“fetta”
Qualify as a 2(2) GI or
designation of origin?
Qualify as a 2(3)
designation of origin?


Area of Greece
determined in an artificial
manner?
Generic?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-52
TRIPS Art. 23
Article 23
Additional Protection for Geographical Indications for Wines and Spirits
1. Each Member shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent use of a
geographical indication identifying wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the
geographical indication in question or identifying spirits for spirits not originating in the place
indicated by the geographical indication in question, even where the true origin of the goods is
indicated or the geographical indication is used in translation or accompanied by expressions such
as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the like. (4)
2. The registration of a trademark for wines which contains or consists of a geographical indication
identifying wines or for spirits which contains or consists of a geographical indication identifying
spirits shall be refused or invalidated, ex officio if a Member's legislation so permits or at the
request of an interested party, with respect to such wines or spirits not having this origin.
3. In the case of homonymous geographical indications for wines, protection shall be accorded to
each indication, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 22. Each Member shall determine
the practical conditions under which the homonymous indications in question will be differentiated
from each other, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers
concerned and that consumers are not misled.
4. In order to facilitate the protection of geographical indications for wines, negotiations shall be
undertaken in the Council for TRIPS concerning the establishment of a multilateral system of
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines eligible for protection in those
Members participating in the system.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-53
TRIPS Art. 24
Article 24 - International Negotiations; Exceptions
1. Members agree to enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the protection of individual
geographical indications under Article 23. The provisions of paragraphs 4 through 8 below shall not
be used by a Member to refuse to conduct negotiations or to conclude bilateral or multilateral
agreements. In the context of such negotiations, Members shall be willing to consider the continued
applicability of these provisions to individual geographical indications whose use was the subject of
such negotiations. . . .
4. Nothing in this Section shall require a Member to prevent continued and similar use of a
particular geographical indication of another Member identifying wines or spirits in connection with
goods or services by any of its nationals or domiciliaries who have used that geographical
indication in a continuous manner with regard to the same or related goods or services in the
territory of that Member either (a) for at least 10 years preceding 15 April 1994 or (b) in good faith
preceding that date. . . .
6. Nothing in this Section shall require a Member to apply its provisions in respect of a geographical
indication of any other Member with respect to goods or services for which the relevant indication is
identical with the term customary in common language as the common name for such goods or
services in the territory of that Member. Nothing in this Section shall require a Member to apply its
provisions in respect of a geographical indication of any other Member with respect to products of
the vine for which the relevant indication is identical with the customary name of a grape variety
existing in the territory of that Member as of the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement. . . .
9. There shall be no obligation under this Agreement to protect geographical indications which are
not or cease to be protected in their country of origin, or which have fallen into disuse in that
country.
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-54
Toward a Better Protection for GIs?

Proposals for wines and spirits under TRIPS



Author’s preference for EU proposal



Minimalist – US lead
Maximalist – EU lead
pros
cons
Expanding beyond wines and spirits?
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-55
EC Protection of TMs and GIs for Ag Products & Foodstuffs (WTO Panel, 2005)


Interaction between earlier mark where later a GI is
introduced with the same phrase/words as the mark
Is the EU law limiting the mark owner’s power to enforce
against the GI consistent with TRIPS?



TRIPS Art. 24(5)
TRIPS Art. 17
Two step version of
3-step test?


Limited exception?
Legitimate interests
 Mark owner
 Public
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
TRIPS Art. 16(1). The owner of a registered trademark shall
have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having
the owner's consent from using in the course of trade
identical or similar signs for goods or services which are
identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark
is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of
confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical
goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be
presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice
any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of
Members making rights available on the basis of use.
4-56
TRIPS Exceptions – arising from language of Berne 9(2)
exceptions to reproduction right
Evaluated against
the specific right(s)
infringed
- Not the “right” to
“work” the patent
- Not against the
entire © work
Evaluating the
right
economically
Patent
TRIPS Art. 30
Copyright
TRIPS Art. 13
Trademark
TRIPS Art. 17
Members may provide limited
exceptions
Members shall
confine limitations
or exceptions to
exclusive rights to
certain special
cases
Members may
provide limited
exceptions to the
rights conferred by
a trademark, such
as fair use of
descriptive terms
Not unreasonably conflict with the
normal exploitation of the right
[SAME]
Not unreasonably prejudice the
legitimate interests of the right
owner
[SAME]
Taking into account the legitimate
interests of third parties
take account of the
legitimate interests
of the owner of the
trademark
and of third parties
Technology antidiscrimination rule –
any inventions in all fields of
technology (TRIPS Art. 27.1)
Int'l IP, Fall 2013, Prof. Greg R. Vetter
4-57